The United States is grappling with a severe housing crisis that has become a top concern for many Americans. Skyrocketing home prices and rents have put affordable housing out of reach for millions, creating a pressing need for innovative solutions. As policymakers and housing experts search for effective strategies to address this issue, some are looking to an unexpected source of inspiration: the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984.
Learning from the Past: The Drinking Age Law Model
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, provides an intriguing blueprint for federal intervention in state-level policies. This law required all states to set their legal drinking age at 21 or face a reduction in federal highway funding. The threat of losing crucial infrastructure funds proved to be a powerful motivator, leading to swift compliance across the nation.
Edward Glaeser, a renowned Harvard economist, suggests applying a similar approach to the housing crisis. In a recent New York Times op-ed, Glaeser proposed:
"The legislation could establish minimum construction levels over three years for all counties with median housing values above $500,000. States with high-price, low-construction counties would have to figure out how to overrule local zoning codes themselves or lose federal transportation funding."
This bold proposal aims to address one of the root causes of the housing shortage: restrictive land-use laws and building codes that make it challenging or impossible to construct enough homes to meet demand.
The Need for Federal Intervention
The severity of the housing crisis has led many experts to conclude that local and state-level efforts alone are insufficient to solve the problem. Ben Metcalf, managing director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, emphasizes the need for federal action:
"The federal government needs to figure out how to accelerate the process of unwinding those kinds of local regulatory barriers. And to do that requires quite a bit more boldness."
By leveraging its financial power, the federal government could potentially overcome local resistance to increased housing development and create a more unified approach to addressing the nationwide shortage.
Potential Challenges and Considerations
While the drinking age law model offers an intriguing approach to tackling the housing crisis, implementing such a policy would face several challenges:
Measurement and Compliance: Unlike the straightforward nature of setting a drinking age, measuring adequate housing construction is more complex. Metcalf notes that construction levels are a lagging indicator, as zoning changes can take years to result in increased development.
Legal Challenges: Since the 1980s, the Supreme Court's stance on congressional power has evolved. Daniel Hemel, a law professor at New York University, points out that any federal mandate would likely face legal scrutiny:
"The key question would be whether Congress has overstepped the blurry line between inducement and coercion."
Political Resistance: Local control over zoning and land use is deeply ingrained in American governance. Any federal attempt to influence these decisions is likely to face significant political opposition.
Balancing Incentives and Penalties: Crafting a policy that effectively motivates states and localities without being overly punitive will be crucial for its success and legal viability.
Potential Benefits of a Federal Housing Mandate
Despite the challenges, a federal mandate for housing construction could offer several significant benefits:
Accelerated Housing Development: By creating a strong incentive for states to ease construction barriers, a federal mandate could lead to a rapid increase in housing supply.
Addressing NIMBY-ism: Local "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) attitudes often hinder housing development. Federal pressure could help overcome this local resistance.
Economic Stimulus: Increased housing construction would create jobs and stimulate economic activity in the construction and related industries.
Improved Affordability: A significant boost in housing supply could help stabilize or even reduce housing costs in high-demand areas.
National Coordination: A federal approach could create a more coordinated and effective response to what is ultimately a national problem.
Alternative Approaches and Complementary Policies
While the federal mandate model is compelling, it's important to consider it as part of a broader strategy to address the housing crisis. Other potential approaches include:
Demand-side Subsidies: Policies like those proposed by Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, including downpayment assistance for first-time homebuyers, could help more Americans access homeownership.
Supply-side Funding: Providing federal funds to boost innovation in housing construction and support affordable housing development could complement regulatory changes.
Zoning Reform Incentives: Rather than penalties, the federal government could offer positive incentives for states and localities that implement zoning reforms to allow for more housing construction.
Public Housing Initiatives: Direct government involvement in housing construction and management could help address shortages in areas where private development is lacking.
The Path Forward: Balancing Federal Action and Local Control
As policymakers consider how to address the housing crisis, the drinking age law model offers a provocative example of how federal power can be leveraged to create nationwide change. However, any solution will need to carefully balance the need for bold action with respect for local governance and the complexities of housing markets.
Glaeser's proposal to tie federal transportation funding to housing construction targets represents one potential approach, but it's likely that a combination of strategies will be necessary to effectively address the multifaceted housing crisis.
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the status quo is unsustainable. With millions of Americans struggling to find affordable housing, bold and innovative solutions are needed. Whether through federal mandates, incentives, or a combination of approaches, addressing the housing shortage will require coordination and commitment at all levels of government.
The drinking age law example shows that federal action can drive significant nationwide change. As we face the ongoing housing crisis, it may be time to consider similarly bold measures to ensure that all Americans have access to safe, affordable housing.
